Features

Contact Us

Scripture error?

Okay, I`m not "churchy". In fact, I`m a doubter, rather than a believer. I do, however, have many, many questions. Anyway, I was reading on another site yesterday, and there was an article about Adam and Eve. Then the scripture was quoted concerning Eve`s creation from Adam. Well, soon as Adam laid eyes on Eve, He says this was his bone and flesh and the reason man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his mate.Ok, where the heck did THAT come from? He didn`t even have a father and mother, so how did he know about all that? Sounds like another of many errors, in my opinion. Anyone splain that?

The book of Genesis, Chapter 1, verses 26 (God speaks to Her better half) and 27 (God is male and so is His Woman), and 28 (sex is great. Enjoy, and make babies). Notice that planet Earth isn't completed yet, and think on this. In Genesis chapter 2 God puts Adam and Eve on Earth. They know Whom their Parents Are. And so, knowing that they are not originally of this Earth, they know that the process is to leave Mom and Dad and then do as They do at their own House. It's a natural thing. Remember, God explained the whole cleave unto your mate thing BEFORE the planet was ready for Adam to be planted and created from the Earth elements. Then Adam seeded Eve, and the cycle of life continues in the universe. Wyrd, but that's my understanding, Bree.

Well if you read the Sumerian cuniforms texts [which the bible got some of its info from] you will see that Adam had a "suitor"before Eve, but she didnt like him, so they "obtained" a new one, also, People tend to take the bible so literally, all holy books were written by man, for the control of man, Adam was the first of his Kind, He was the progenitor for the new race which was to take over earth, i guess in part from Neanderthal "Esau" and there were the canaanites who were black in origin, there are 5 main races on earth, all of which came from manipulation from "out there", we did not evolve from apes we have been geneticaly manipulated many many times, I also think that Adam was the 1st "souled" human, but its just an opinion,

I am leaving a link to a good sight for christians. I have found this very helpful with the bible search and such... the preacher is also good.http://www.biblelineministries.org/main.htmlBree, if you dont understand something, this preacher has on this site audio files explaining every verse. Monica, Yes these texts are very puzzling to read, but I have faith that this love i speak of is within these pages. It is written to hide truth from the opposers. Maybe it should have come with secret decoder ring. I admire your fire and hunger for truth. I relate to your thoughts and whats in your mind on these subjects. All i can say is, We know not.

Well, we do know that the bible begins with two different creation stories, is littered with mistranslations and beleaguered by misinterpretations. It’s nice to see someone focus on the “love” aspect of religion rather than the far too dwelled upon hate and bigotry (most of which are the previously mentioned mistranslations and misinterpretations). Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}I am inclined to believe that Adam and Eve were not people but genetic streams. Knowing what we do know about the eventual outcome of chronic incest if we had come from only two progenitors we’d all be well… barely human.

Genetically....modified??? Wow. Again there is this presumption of powers beyond our own! Technology so advanced! Alien races that are inter-dimensional! But...somehow...completely stupid. Think very carefully. If we are genetically modified, why would our creators (assuming they know DNA pretty well), leave us with the genes for things like...an appenix. Gills. A tail. Wisdom teeth. Pinky toes. Leg hair. Seems like a really buggy mess to me. I can't even program species with genes. But I know enough to leave those bits out. And why not give us cool (and more favorable) adaptations? Like flight? Or barbed poison-filled finger nails? Or to be amphibeans when most of our planet is covered in water? Or be photosynthetic? I'm not inclined to believe a species with the smarts to CREATE life would include crap that was senseless. Evolution, however, has a fabulous record of doing this. Its like building a car with a built in garden-watering hose. Or a house with a basement lava flow. Or an office that is powered from swamp gas from venus.

Ok, that`s some pretty good opinions. Still not sure where I stand. I am pretty open-minded on evolution, aliens, etc. As I previously stated, I`m not "churchy". I was raised by a pentacostal minister, so I know quite a bit about the bible. Since I started really questioning and searching, several years ago, I really have a hard time believing the bible is anything more than a book written by man, for man. Especially the old testament.
I`ve spent countless hours reading everything I could find about all this, and am actually more confused now than when I started. lol

Omen: For sure, LOVE is the most important thing. That`s one thing my daddy preached on a lot. I`ve always believed that without love, nothing else matters.

Well, firstly it is a book of thousands of years of mythology, passed on by oral tradition to written "history" and translated and re-translated, often badly, until you get down to what we have today. If you question a dozen ministers regarding the obvious contradictions in Genesis you are apt to get a dozen different explanations.

There are actually two creation stories. The first, God created man (male and female), and then part two, God created Adam and later created Eve. Did you know that according to the old Judaic texts Adam had a wife before Eve, apparently the first female? Her name was Lilith and she did not like to be on the bottom during sex. Anyway, she and Adam had children, which Lilith ate. Did I mention she was a little...um...unconventional, shall we say? Different Judaic traditions have somewhat different ideas about Lilith, but in most all, she leaves the garden and becomes a demon that seduces men and kills babies.

It also says in the Bible that the sons of Adam and Eve took wives from the land of Nod. Which is another contradiction. Where did those people come from. My fundamentalist ex-father in law told me that after God created Adam and Eve and witnessed their fall from grace he simply went ahead and populated the rest of the world at a later date.

If I want to follow these contradictions out using a Biblical train of thought I would say that Adam and Eve, and maybe Lilith, were the first "people of God". There were other beings, humanoid if you wish, which had been created prior to A. and E., but they were not God's creation in his own image. So, once they A. and E. fell from grace their punishment was to live in the world with all of the lesser beings. And if you think about it, it would have been entirely possible that they were aware of the others similar to themselves who lived outside the "garden".

But mostly I would say that it is a book of Mythology and should be judged as such. It doesn't mean you can't believe it if you wish; just don't expect writings and stories from six thousand years ago to have survived intact. Ever play "telephone"?

I`ve read just about everything that has been mentioned on here (except I didn`t know about Lilith eating the babies-ewww), but thats what is so confusing-everyone has a different version of things, not counting the bible, which I really don`t believe, anyway. I do believe in an afterlife, for reasons I won`t go into on this thread, but not as the bible teaches.
I guess what is so confusing is ppl like Sitchen, Daniken, etc. all have theories, the same as most of us. But who really knows the truth of the matter? The bible was truth to me when I was young, because I was taught that from a tot. Later, I kept finding inconsistencies, and when I`d question things, I was told that we weren`t meant to know things til we got to heaven. Well. I wanna know NOW! lol
Anyway, thank all of y`all so much, and any more insights would be welcomed.

Well, firstly it is a book of thousands of years of mythology, passed on by oral tradition to written "history" and translated and re-translated, often badly, until you get down to what we have today. If you question a dozen ministers regarding the obvious contradictions in Genesis you are apt to get a dozen different explanations.

There are actually two creation stories. The first, God created man (male and female), and then part two, God created Adam and later created Eve. Did you know that according to the old Judaic texts Adam had a wife before Eve, apparently the first female? Her name was Lilith and she did not like to be on the bottom during sex. Anyway, she and Adam had children, which Lilith ate. Did I mention she was a little...um...unconventional, shall we say? Different Judaic traditions have somewhat different ideas about Lilith, but in most all, she leaves the garden and becomes a demon that seduces men and kills babies.

It also says in the Bible that the sons of Adam and Eve took wives from the land of Nod. Which is another contradiction. Where did those people come from. My fundamentalist ex-father in law told me that after God created Adam and Eve and witnessed their fall from grace he simply went ahead and populated the rest of the world at a later date.

If I want to follow these contradictions out using a Biblical train of thought I would say that Adam and Eve, and maybe Lilith, were the first "people of God". There were other beings, humanoid if you wish, which had been created prior to A. and E., but they were not God's creation in his own image. So, once they A. and E. fell from grace their punishment was to live in the world with all of the lesser beings. And if you think about it, it would have been entirely possible that they were aware of the others similar to themselves who lived outside the "garden".

But mostly I would say that it is a book of Mythology and should be judged as such. It doesn't mean you can't believe it if you wish; just don't expect writings and stories from six thousand years ago to have survived intact. Ever play "telephone"?

plus one, jaguar you articualted what i wanted to say very well , i just couldnt remember what Adams first partners name was, you are bang on the money...........

Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, etc. - There is a very delicate and expressive meaning in the original which does not appear in our version. When the different genera of creatures were brought to Adam, that he might assign them their proper names, it is probable that they passed in pairs before him, and as they passed received their names. To this circumstance the words in this place seem to refer. Instead of this now is זאת הפאם zoth happaam, we should render more literally this turn, this creature, which now passes or appears before me, is flesh of my flesh, etc. The creatures that had passed already before him were not suitable to him, and therefore it was said, For Adam there was not a help meet found, Genesis 2:20; but when the woman came, formed out of himself, he felt all that attraction which consanguinity could produce, and at the same time saw that she was in her person and in her mind every way suitable to be his companion. See Parkhurst, sub voce.

She shall be called Woman - A literal version of the Hebrew would appear strange, and yet a literal version is the only proper one. איש ish signifies man, and the word used to express what we term woman is the same with a feminine termination, אשה ishshah, and literally means she-man. Most of the ancient versions have felt the force of the term, and have endeavored to express it as literally as possible. The intelligent reader will not regret to see some of them here. The Vulgate Latin renders the Hebrew virago, which is a feminine form of vir, a man. Symmachus uses ανδρις, andris, a female form of ανηρ, aner, a man. Our own term is equally proper when understood. Woman has been defined by many as compounded of wo and man, as if called man's wo because she tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit; but this is no meaning of the original word, nor could it be intended, as the transgression was not then committed. The truth is, our term is a proper and literal translation of the original, and we may thank the discernment of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors for giving it. The Anglo-Saxon word, of which woman is a contraction, means the man with the womb. A very appropriate version of the Hebrew אשה ishshah, rendered by terms which signify she-man, in the versions already specified. Hence we see the propriety of Adam's observation: This creature is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones; therefore shall she be called Womb-Man, or female man, because she was taken out of man. See Verstegan. Others derive it from the Anglo-Saxon words for man's wife or she-man. Either may be proper, the first seems the most likely.

Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, etc. - There is a very delicate and expressive meaning in the original which does not appear in our version. When the different genera of creatures were brought to Adam, that he might assign them their proper names, it is probable that they passed in pairs before him, and as they passed received their names. To this circumstance the words in this place seem to refer. Instead of this now is זאת הפאם zoth happaam, we should render more literally this turn, this creature, which now passes or appears before me, is flesh of my flesh, etc. The creatures that had passed already before him were not suitable to him, and therefore it was said, For Adam there was not a help meet found, Genesis 2:20; but when the woman came, formed out of himself, he felt all that attraction which consanguinity could produce, and at the same time saw that she was in her person and in her mind every way suitable to be his companion. See Parkhurst, sub voce.

She shall be called Woman - A literal version of the Hebrew would appear strange, and yet a literal version is the only proper one. איש ish signifies man, and the word used to express what we term woman is the same with a feminine termination, אשה ishshah, and literally means she-man. Most of the ancient versions have felt the force of the term, and have endeavored to express it as literally as possible. The intelligent reader will not regret to see some of them here. The Vulgate Latin renders the Hebrew virago, which is a feminine form of vir, a man. Symmachus uses ανδρις, andris, a female form of ανηρ, aner, a man. Our own term is equally proper when understood. Woman has been defined by many as compounded of wo and man, as if called man's wo because she tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit; but this is no meaning of the original word, nor could it be intended, as the transgression was not then committed. The truth is, our term is a proper and literal translation of the original, and we may thank the discernment of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors for giving it. The Anglo-Saxon word, of which woman is a contraction, means the man with the womb. A very appropriate version of the Hebrew אשה ishshah, rendered by terms which signify she-man, in the versions already specified. Hence we see the propriety of Adam's observation: This creature is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones; therefore shall she be called Womb-Man, or female man, because she was taken out of man. See Verstegan. Others derive it from the Anglo-Saxon words for man's wife or she-man. Either may be proper, the first seems the most likely.

So what this all boils down to is: Either take the bible literally, with all it`s inconsistencies, or realize it is a book of myths handed down from previous cultures orally. Actually, in my opinion, its not even about making a choice what you believe. Either you believe, or you don`t. No matter how hard you may want to believe, if you say:"I believe this.....", and deep down inside, you really don`t, your subconcious is going "hunh?". So you`re back to this whole confusing mess, what is truth? Does any of my confusion make sense? lol

Oh, I just thought of something that is sort of relevant to the thread and I thought I would share. If you get the chance read 'Letters from the Earth' by Mark Twain; hilarious stuff and absolute heresy in Twain's time.

So what this all boils down to is: Either take the bible literally, with all it`s inconsistencies, or realize it is a book of myths handed down from previous cultures orally. Actually, in my opinion, its not even about making a choice what you believe. Either you believe, or you don`t. No matter how hard you may want to believe, if you say:"I believe this.....", and deep down inside, you really don`t, your subconcious is going "hunh?". So you`re back to this whole confusing mess, what is truth? Does any of my confusion make sense? lol

Yes, of course. I almost agree with you. Some will see, some will not.